Mandating Gardasil: A Gross Infringement On Parental Rights

standardnewswire.com ^ | 02/09/07 | Unknown

[metmom]

The danger is who it is that is deciding what it *crackpot*. For the left, who seems to generally consider religion to be the source of evil in the world, or just a bunch of fairy tales, anything could qualify.

FGM is not found anywhere in the Koran by all accounts I've heard, which is one of the points used in attempts to stop the practice.

Health care decisions are always a judgment call. When my kids get sick, I decide when and if to take them to the doctor. There have been cases where the government has tried to force on kids (teens) medical care they wish not to take.

I don't believe that politicians who neither know me nor have any medical experience are in the best position to decide for me. And I don't want them deciding whether my religious views pass muster with them.

[rock58seg]

Now you know why I voted for every Republican on the ballot, except for Gov. Goodhair.

[Nevernow]

From personal experience, when I was a minor, I needed a few things done to me too, and a few things were suggested to my parents but they declined. I was taken aside and told what the benefits were and told that if I felt it was necessary, there were options to bipass my parents.

This isn't compareable, either. This isn't necessary to save lives. A religious opt-out is about the only kind they can put in besides medical. Anything else and there's no point in it being mandatory, it'd be better to just have it opt in. Saying, "I just don't want my kids to have it," isn't good enough, not if it's mandatory.

[Nevernow]

I believe (I don't have the numbers on me right now) that cervical cancer cases are actually decreasing as the population increases, thanks to checks for HPV becoming routine. I'm not entirely certain on that, but if it's the case that the numbers would go up as the population increases, why is the opposite happening, without introducing a mandatory vaccine?

[Nevernow]

I checked out their website. Many of the articles are about the dangers of Gardasil and Merck's advertising campaign. If the core concer is actually that children will be getting out of illnesses given to them by God that they should suffer through, why aren't they against all vaccines, and why do they suggest people try different companies than Merck instead of saying, "don't buy treatments or preventions for your children, it's evil!"

They're against vaccines using fetal cells, which I would expect a religious organization to do. That's not their concern about this one. Their concern is where a lot of peoples' concerns are...it's an anti-STD vaccine, not an anti-cancer vaccine. It isn't conclusively safe, the ACP opposes the mandate, the NVIC has urged state officials to reconsider, and Merck is engaged in deceptive marketing.

If they were saying, all vaccines are bad, I might agree with you that I don't trust them to sway my opinion on this one in particular, but they aren't saying that.

[LtdGovt]

The danger is who it is that is deciding what it *crackpot*. For the left, who seems to generally consider religion to be the source of evil in the world, or just a bunch of fairy tales, anything could qualify.

Only the Judeo-Christian religions. Islam is fantastic and a religion of peace, if we believe the liberals.

FGM is not found anywhere in the Koran by all accounts I've heard, which is one of the points used in attempts to stop the practice.

Certainly. But later on, you say that you don't want the government "deciding whether my religious views pass muster with them." If so, then government has no right to determine that FGM on a religious basis is illegal. And it is often done on a religious basis, many prominent Muslim scholars favor the practice as encouraging chastity, most notably, fake moderate sheikh Al-Qaradawi.

Health care decisions are always a judgment call. When my kids get sick, I decide when and if to take them to the doctor. There have been cases where the government has tried to force on kids (teens) medical care they wish not to take.

That's wrong. But imagine the following circumstance: child is ill and will die if care is not given, the child does want the medical care, but the parent objects because of some religious creed. Should the child be given medical care or not?

[LtdGovt]

From personal experience, when I was a minor, I needed a few things done to me too, and a few things were suggested to my parents but they declined. I was taken aside and told what the benefits were and told that if I felt it was necessary, there were options to bipass my parents.

That's the way I believe it should be. Parents don't own their children, the children are independent human beings with a right to life and health.

This isn't compareable, either. This isn't necessary to save lives. A religious opt-out is about the only kind they can put in besides medical. Anything else and there's no point in it being mandatory, it'd be better to just have it opt in. Saying, "I just don't want my kids to have it," isn't good enough, not if it's mandatory.

Well, then I'm for an opt-in or an opt-out that can be refused on any ground. It's ludicrous if religious views are favored over secular views, especially since the secular views concern earthly (and for the child, more important) matters like safety.

[LtdGovt]

Well, now I've checked their website too, and you may be right. But it was the news article that made me think that, because of their focus on "religious exemptions".

[NittanyLion]

There are two groups of people on FR who are objecting to Gardasil. The first are the folks who -- like yourself -- apparently object to all vaccines...The second group of folks have concerns specific to Gardasil.

And the third are those who simply want the ability to choose for themselves, as opposed to having government mandate their actions.

[metmom]

So it's OK for *society* to step in and *protect* the child when it feels that the child is being harmed. But what about when it's society that's doing the harming and the parents are resisting? If society makes the final determination, then by that kind of warped reasoning FGM would be acceptable because their society promotes it.

With this vaccine, we have a situation where parents feel that making their children get it is putting them in harm's way because of adverse side-effects and lack of knowledge of effectiveness and long term side effects. The government feels parents are putting the children in harm's way by not giving them the vaccine and possibly exposing them to something that might result in cervical cancer. So who gets to make the final determination?

This is not an immediate life and death situation here, like in pneumonia or diabetes. This is a cancer that takes years to develop and can be easily detected by responsible medical care on the woman's part. It is easily treated when caught early.

I don't see that irresponsible medical decisions by so many women should result in me or my children being forced to accept something they don't want in an alleged effort to protect them from themselves. It sends the message that the government thinks that you're unintelligent, irresponsible, and incapable of making intelligent thought out decisions about your own life.

They are not God. Nobody gave them the authority to do that for me.

[WV Mountain Mama]

You know, I am wondering what happened to the liberal feminist mantra: my body, my choice?!?!?! By law a teenage girl can have an abortion but she can not refuse a vaccination for HPV...

Politicians: hypocrisy in motion.

[metmom]

It's only your choice when they let you have one.

---

Tag line.... Don't give them any ideas!!!!!

I live in a state that seems to just look for things to tax.

But that's funny anyway...

[WV Mountain Mama]

Yeah, really. WV is a surprisingly expensive place to live as far as taxes go. I was watching a Pittsburgh news channel the other day and was listening to Fast Eddie Rendell talk about how he was going to cut property taxes. Wait for it, wait for it.... he is raising the gas tax, cigar tax, smokeless tobacco tax and something else. LOL!!

[CholeraJoe]

The time between getting HPV and developing cervical cancer is up to 20 years.

I wouldn't take that figure to the bank. I've seen several 20-something women with cervical cancer.

[khnyny]

Just wanted to draw your attention to the possible conflict of interest within the FDA when a new drug is being reviewed. The FDA is currently being funded by the drug companies whose drugs they are reviewing (since 1992). Of course, the pharma lobbyist groups deny that this creates any environment where there could be a possible conflict of interest.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070216/hl_nm/drugs_fda_dc_1

[metmom]

Surprise, surprise,...